Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Romans

[Tarnished]

> The principles and foundations we find in theism (regularity, order, balance, beauty, predictability, personality, purpose, intelligence [informational data], and morality, to name a few)

The problem here is that those are all based on unsubstantiated claims.

Science is in the business of understanding as accurately as possible the real world and nature. Its based on evidence. Theism is not based on evidence, it is based on the ignorance of the people who wrote the doctrine thousands of years ago before any formalised method for studying reality had even been conceived. Its based on superstition and ignorance.

Tell me one part of theism that gets nature right, and how you know it got it right?

I'm starting to think you don't really know what science is. Science isn't opinions, it's demonstrable models based on evidence.

Please show me one part of theism that gets nature right, and how you know its right.

> There are many evidences that point to theism, the teleological argument

In order to be convinced by this argument, you have to ignore the facts and evidence. I'm not going to copy paste any links. This argument has never met its burden of proof. If it had, then why wouldn't science support it? Anyway, the fact that you can easily Google it and read up on why it fails, and you're still convinced by it, tells me that nothing I say or do will convince you otherwise, means that you don't seem to care about evidence. And that you're dismissing science as being unable to access the truth here, because it's limited, enforces the notion that you don't seem to care about the actual evidenced. I'm going to guess then that you're also a young earth creationist, because that would seem to align with the evidence that you don't care about evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

And if you won't honestly look at the facts and evidence, what could I possibly say to you to make this conversation worth while? You're not going to convince me to ignore the evidence, I'm not going to convince you to accept the evidence. Time to move on?

[jimwalton]

Yep, time to move on. Thanks for the conversation. Perhaps we'll get a chance to converse later on another topic.

And, just for the record, I'm not a young earth creationist. And I don't dismiss science. Science has plenty of access to the truth; I've said it several times. I do look honestly at the facts and evidence, which is why I take the positions I do. I'm an evidentialist, as I've said several times. I follow the evidence where it leads.

I could respond to your post, but it's time to move on. Thanks for the conversation.

[Al 88]

> It doesn't say they knew God, per se

The beginning of verse 21 is quite explicit in stating that "they knew God".

[jimwalton]

Correct. That's why I added "per se." It's a statement that originally men had some knowledge of God. Throughout history we have found that in any era, in any region, every culture has some kind of recognition and awareness of a deity. God's attributes (as we have discussed) have always been clearly seeable by anyone in any culture; they're out there to see.